[MD] The Dynamics of Value

[118]

Hi A,

I like your approaches, they are similar to mine, although different.
 Indeed a systems approach is useful.

Yes, language does not reflect ones thoughts, in fact they are a vast
simplification of an overall awareness.  But they are the primary tool for
communication of the intellect.  As you say, ones concept of a word is
subjective and words therefore have limits.  I believe due to the high
indoctrination (school and such) that words are provided high importance, to
the point where some believe that they think in words.  I believe that this
is at the root of Subject Object Metaphysics.

Imagine that one day as a boy you wake up and decide to go through the woods
to a creak nearby.  You have been trained, so you take along your sticky
notepad and begin pasting over everything you see a name.  So all the trees,
rocks, grasses, ivy, etc all have these little square notes on them, all the
way down to the creak.  A few days later after having learned some more at
school, you go down again to the creak.  This time you can add
sub-classifications to the notes you had posted, such as what kind of tree,
etc.  After a year, the whole walk to the creak will be just one big mass of
yellow note pads.  You would not be able to see the trees or plants anymore
because they are all covered up.  Yet you would think that you are seeing
them because you see the names.  This is just a metaphor for the impact of
labels which describe objects on our views.

Yes, knowledge transfer, learn from your elders.  I do not think the brain
is any more advanced now (biologically) than it was say 20,000 years ago.
 However, the complexity of thought is, because we have to learn so many
facts.  It is still the same brain, with the same emotions, but layered with
a bunch of sticky notes.  We call this advance, but I believe it simply
covers the subjective with the objective.  We look for solutions without
rather than within.  I read once that for every psychological word in
English, there are ten in German, and one hundred in sanskrit.  I believe
that back many many years, people had a much better appreciation for the
subjective.  Now we watch TV.

Thanks,
Mark

On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 2:17 PM, Alexander Jarnroth <
alexander.jarnroth at comhem.se> wrote:

> In reply to Mark:
>
> I've been thinking even more today (and as I've said before, much of this
> is
> new to me, and so I'm still in a process of internalization). What dawned
> on
> me today, while being out walking (I like to do that, makes me think
> better), is that MoQ and Systems Theory within the limits of ordinary
> epistemology becomes each other's DUALS, in a kind of mathematical sense.
> That is, statements made within one becomes dual to some other statement
> made within the other.
> This hangs together with the view that the one is overcoming the Cartesian
> dichotomy by turning everything into subjects, while the other does just
> the
> opposite.
> You could also see the dual relationship comparing the divisions. MoQ
> states:
> Primary experience is divided into
> 1. Dynamic Quality
> 2. Static Quality
> The second is then divided into:
> 2.1 Physic
> 2.2 Biological
> 2.3 Social
> 2.4 Intellectual
>
> In Systems Theory you divide what could be described into:
> 1. Concrete Systems
> 2. Abstract Systems
> Next, both types can be divided into:
> A. Closes systems
> B. Open Systems
> And finally open systems are measured according to a scale ranging from
> B.1 Dynamic
> B.2. Mechanic (static)
>
> And thus the one tells you exactly that which the other doesn't.
>
> You could also, concerning MoQ
> Say that physical patterns of value confines biological patterns, while the
> latter informs the former and so on to dynamic quality.
>
> I think the mind ha a tendency to overestimate the value of words. As
> noted,
> language and linguistics are social patterns, not intellectual. Many a time
> I've felt that I've been knowing what I would like to express, however not
> being able to formulate it linguistically in a proper way. Also, language
> being linear in one spatial dimension, that is, being a sequence, whose
> value varies with time. That is: everything communicated by means of words,
> must be sequentially ordered. Primary thought, I believe, operates in more
> dimensions. But of course, sentences are also systems of interpretation and
> the meaning of a word is not determined only by the word itself, but also
> by
> its grammatical relations to other words within the sentence.
> And, in some respects, you categorize things by assigning them names, but
> you always know that you can redefine the words and categorize in many
> different "sets" simultaneously (thus creating both proper subsets,
> disjoint
> sets, intersecting sets and so on).
> So I think that, while being the social pattern upon which intellectual
> patterns most heavily rely upon, language shouldn't be assigned to great an
> influence over mind. But perhaps it might have not considered social
> implications not obvious at first glance.
>
> Talking about cells. There are these cells normally living disjoint in a
> state similar to amoebae. However, when they lack nutrition, they clump
> together forming a kind of "spore-body", which later send away some cells
> packed as spores. Most cells, however dies in this process. Also in a
> multicellular organism, most cells will ultimately be dead ends. Only a few
> of the gametes will continue the life of the organism by creating a new.
> These cells are, somehow, already from the beginning offering their lives.
> Thus there is a kind of pre-social division between individual cells and
> organisms consisting of the cells, analogues to the division between
> individual human beings and social systems consisting of such individuals.
> There actually is an analogue to the division between the social and
> intellectual systems among humans, among cells. The organism consists of
> cells and dominates them, but it is the cells containing the genome, which
> transfer the "knowledge" of the cell from one generation to the next.
> Perhaps it is here we should seek for the value of language, being also a
> kind of "code" transferring knowledge from one generation to the next.
>
> /A
>
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>